"Any" explanation is just stupid as people could give BS or one word explanations.

BS explanations could be of any length, so having stringent requirements in that department doesn't save you anything. Law of parsimony. No sense in having a requirement that doesn't do anything.

And I disagree that an explanation can be one word. I see nothing wrong with brief, terse, or brief explanations.

Let's provide an example of "any explanation", shall we? Let's use the example of a standard god exists (pro) debate. I vote all the points for con. Here's my explanations:

Agreed with before the debate: ConAgreed with after the debate: ConWho had better conduct: Con had much better conduct than pro (let me also say that con objectively had worse conduct).Had better spelling and grammar: Con. Pro's arguments were riddled with spelling and grammar errors (even though let's say Con's grammar was actually worse).Made more convincing arguments: Con because god doesn't exist.Used the most reliable sources: Con because Hitchens is awesome.

These are "any" explanations and they don't violate the TOS. They don't even have to be "true" so long as they're an explanation. So what's the difference between this and votebombing? There's a reason this system is in place because we want debaters to improve based on "good" criticism.

Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

While this is potentially an explanation, it doesn't explain why the sources were more reliable.

These are "any" explanations and they don't violate the TOS. They don't even have to be "true" so long as they're an explanation. So what's the difference between this and votebombing? There's a reason this system is in place because we want debaters to improve based on "good" criticism.

I agree that there is no difference between what you wrote and vote bombing without an RFD. You seem to be operating under the notion that any gibberish you type on the keyboard counts as an explanation. I disagree with that notion. Lies cannot be explanations. Things which do not address what is being asked cannot be explanations.

It's so easy to want such an undeveloped moderation standard untill you have one... and then the bad votes arrive on your debate, and Whiteflame just says "nothing i can do, sorry"... why do you think it got the way it is now? The lawls? It happened because people kept getting bad votes, and vote moderation couldn't stop it.

While this is potentially an explanation, it doesn't explain why the sources were more reliable.

These are "any" explanations and they don't violate the TOS. They don't even have to be "true" so long as they're an explanation. So what's the difference between this and votebombing? There's a reason this system is in place because we want debaters to improve based on "good" criticism.

I agree that there is no difference between what you wrote and vote bombing without an RFD. You seem to be operating under the notion that any gibberish you type on the keyboard counts as an explanation. I disagree with that notion. Lies cannot be explanations. Things which do not address what is being asked cannot be explanations.

Well now you need to define what that is in your suggestion for "voting moderation improvement". Not just say "any explanation" because that is foolishly broad. Explanation: a reason or justification given for an action or belief. Combined with any that would be "any sort of justification for ones vote, regardless of whether it's reality or the person's belief".

Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Lol, I like the visual element but I do see one slight issue with this.

The second step says, "Does the vote provide any explanation for each point awarded."

The issue I see with this is with the key terms "any explanation". The problem is that if someone says they awarded arguments because, "they like Con's personality more" it'd be permissible under your proposed standards since it's still an explanation. We can't allow such votes though as they aren't votes based on the substance of the arguments but rather on the personal opinion of the voter.

The only difference between your image and the actual standards is that we'd ask that the vote provide *sufficient* explanations for each point awarded. We can't just accept *any* explanation though as sometimes those explanations would potentially be pure bias or unfounded opinion.

I agree that there is no difference between what you wrote and vote bombing without an RFD. You seem to be operating under the notion that any gibberish you type on the keyboard counts as an explanation. I disagree with that notion. Lies cannot be explanations. Things which do not address what is being asked cannot be explanations.

Well now you need to define what that is in your suggestion for "voting moderation improvement". Not just say "any explanation" because that is foolishly broad. Explanation: a reason or justification given for an action or belief. Combined with any that would be "any sort of justification for ones vote, regardless of whether it's reality or the person's belief".

I agree that there is no difference between what you wrote and vote bombing without an RFD. You seem to be operating under the notion that any gibberish you type on the keyboard counts as an explanation. I disagree with that notion. Lies cannot be explanations. Things which do not address what is being asked cannot be explanations.

Well now you need to define what that is in your suggestion for "voting moderation improvement". Not just say "any explanation" because that is foolishly broad. Explanation: a reason or justification given for an action or belief. Combined with any that would be "any sort of justification for ones vote, regardless of whether it's reality or the person's belief".

I'd rather be foolishly broad than fascistly narrow.

Then don't say my explanations were "wrong" or that they "weren't explanations". Those were perfectly fine explanations in accordance with your suggested improvements.

Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

I agree that there is no difference between what you wrote and vote bombing without an RFD. You seem to be operating under the notion that any gibberish you type on the keyboard counts as an explanation. I disagree with that notion. Lies cannot be explanations. Things which do not address what is being asked cannot be explanations.

Well now you need to define what that is in your suggestion for "voting moderation improvement". Not just say "any explanation" because that is foolishly broad. Explanation: a reason or justification given for an action or belief. Combined with any that would be "any sort of justification for ones vote, regardless of whether it's reality or the person's belief".

I'd rather be foolishly broad than fascistly narrow.

Then don't say my explanations were "wrong" or that they "weren't explanations". Those were perfectly fine explanations in accordance with your suggested improvements.

At 6/8/2016 6:22:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:It's so easy to want such an undeveloped moderation standard untill you have one... and then the bad votes arrive on your debate, and Whiteflame just says "nothing i can do, sorry"... why do you think it got the way it is now? The lawls? It happened because people kept getting bad votes, and vote moderation couldn't stop it.

Let's be real. Most people think that any vote not in their favor is a "bad" vote.

I agree that there is no difference between what you wrote and vote bombing without an RFD. You seem to be operating under the notion that any gibberish you type on the keyboard counts as an explanation. I disagree with that notion. Lies cannot be explanations. Things which do not address what is being asked cannot be explanations.

Well now you need to define what that is in your suggestion for "voting moderation improvement". Not just say "any explanation" because that is foolishly broad. Explanation: a reason or justification given for an action or belief. Combined with any that would be "any sort of justification for ones vote, regardless of whether it's reality or the person's belief".

I'd rather be foolishly broad than fascistly narrow.

Then don't say my explanations were "wrong" or that they "weren't explanations". Those were perfectly fine explanations in accordance with your suggested improvements.

No they weren't.

We've just been over this. Your definition is so foolishly broad that they would be. And if your "improvement" was actually implemented, as soon as a mod removes a vote saying "these explanations weren't explanations" then your entire very fragile system is going down because of a very poor choice of words.

Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Lol, I like the visual element but I do see one slight issue with this.

The second step says, "Does the vote provide any explanation for each point awarded."

The issue I see with this is with the key terms "any explanation". The problem is that if someone says they awarded arguments because, "they like Con's personality more" it'd be permissible under your proposed standards since it's still an explanation. We can't allow such votes though as they aren't votes based on the substance of the arguments but rather on the personal opinion of the voter.

The only difference between your image and the actual standards is that we'd ask that the vote provide *sufficient* explanations for each point awarded. We can't just accept *any* explanation though as sometimes those explanations would potentially be pure bias or unfounded opinion.

The actual standards require that a person address every single point raised in the debate. That's stupid. Really, it's stupid.

The standard completely and explicitly forbids making general overall assessment of debates. An RFD *has* to be rooted in the individual arguments. You can't look at the overall argument and make a judgement on that.

I agree that there is no difference between what you wrote and vote bombing without an RFD. You seem to be operating under the notion that any gibberish you type on the keyboard counts as an explanation. I disagree with that notion. Lies cannot be explanations. Things which do not address what is being asked cannot be explanations.

Well now you need to define what that is in your suggestion for "voting moderation improvement". Not just say "any explanation" because that is foolishly broad. Explanation: a reason or justification given for an action or belief. Combined with any that would be "any sort of justification for ones vote, regardless of whether it's reality or the person's belief".

I'd rather be foolishly broad than fascistly narrow.

Then don't say my explanations were "wrong" or that they "weren't explanations". Those were perfectly fine explanations in accordance with your suggested improvements.

No they weren't.

We've just been over this. Your definition is so foolishly broad that they would be.

And your test vote violated even that standard. Listen, I get it. You want to construct an RFD that we all agree one as bad, but would still be allowed by the posited standard. I understand the tactic. It's a fine tactic. But the vote you constructed didn't pass muster. I agree that it was bad, in fact, it was so bad it still wouldn't even be allowed under a "foolishly broad" standard.

Try again, but be a little less heavy handed and obvious.

And if your "improvement" was actually implemented, as soon as a mod removes a vote saying "these explanations weren't explanations" then your entire very fragile system is going down because of a very poor choice of words.

I agree that there is no difference between what you wrote and vote bombing without an RFD. You seem to be operating under the notion that any gibberish you type on the keyboard counts as an explanation. I disagree with that notion. Lies cannot be explanations. Things which do not address what is being asked cannot be explanations.

Well now you need to define what that is in your suggestion for "voting moderation improvement". Not just say "any explanation" because that is foolishly broad. Explanation: a reason or justification given for an action or belief. Combined with any that would be "any sort of justification for ones vote, regardless of whether it's reality or the person's belief".

I'd rather be foolishly broad than fascistly narrow.

Then don't say my explanations were "wrong" or that they "weren't explanations". Those were perfectly fine explanations in accordance with your suggested improvements.

No they weren't.

We've just been over this. Your definition is so foolishly broad that they would be.

And your test vote violated even that standard. Listen, I get it. You want to construct an RFD that we all agree one as bad, but would still be allowed by the posited standard. I understand the tactic. It's a fine tactic. But the vote you constructed didn't pass muster. I agree that it was bad, in fact, it was so bad it still wouldn't even be allowed under a "foolishly broad" standard.

Try again, but be a little less heavy handed and obvious.

And if your "improvement" was actually implemented, as soon as a mod removes a vote saying "these explanations weren't explanations" then your entire very fragile system is going down because of a very poor choice of words.

Why?

I don't have to, that's the thing. You're trying to narrow what "any" is. Do it then. Don't try to continue to justify the use of that wording. A removal of a vote that has an explanation, regardless of what its content is (hence "any") would subject your "improvement" to scrutiny because then you'd have to make clearer definitions, and with those clearer definitions more votes would be removed, and then eventually you'll end up to "sufficient explanation" which would be exactly what you didn't want.

Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

I agree that there is no difference between what you wrote and vote bombing without an RFD. You seem to be operating under the notion that any gibberish you type on the keyboard counts as an explanation. I disagree with that notion. Lies cannot be explanations. Things which do not address what is being asked cannot be explanations.

Well now you need to define what that is in your suggestion for "voting moderation improvement". Not just say "any explanation" because that is foolishly broad. Explanation: a reason or justification given for an action or belief. Combined with any that would be "any sort of justification for ones vote, regardless of whether it's reality or the person's belief".

I'd rather be foolishly broad than fascistly narrow.

Then don't say my explanations were "wrong" or that they "weren't explanations". Those were perfectly fine explanations in accordance with your suggested improvements.

No they weren't.

We've just been over this. Your definition is so foolishly broad that they would be.

And your test vote violated even that standard. Listen, I get it. You want to construct an RFD that we all agree one as bad, but would still be allowed by the posited standard. I understand the tactic. It's a fine tactic. But the vote you constructed didn't pass muster. I agree that it was bad, in fact, it was so bad it still wouldn't even be allowed under a "foolishly broad" standard.

Try again, but be a little less heavy handed and obvious.

And if your "improvement" was actually implemented, as soon as a mod removes a vote saying "these explanations weren't explanations" then your entire very fragile system is going down because of a very poor choice of words.

Why?

I don't have to, that's the thing. You're trying to narrow what "any" is. Do it then. Don't try to continue to justify the use of that wording. A removal of a vote that has an explanation, regardless of what its content is (hence "any") would subject your "improvement" to scrutiny because then you'd have to make clearer definitions, and with those clearer definitions more votes would be removed, and then eventually you'll end up to "sufficient explanation" which would be exactly what you didn't want.

I'm not narrowing what "any" is. It's already narrowed by the word "explanation." If I tell you to bring me any cat and you bring me a dog that's not going to fly.

I agree that any explanation regardless of content would be allowed. I disagree that any content constitutes and explanation.

Lol, I like the visual element but I do see one slight issue with this.

The second step says, "Does the vote provide any explanation for each point awarded."

The issue I see with this is with the key terms "any explanation". The problem is that if someone says they awarded arguments because, "they like Con's personality more" it'd be permissible under your proposed standards since it's still an explanation. We can't allow such votes though as they aren't votes based on the substance of the arguments but rather on the personal opinion of the voter.

The only difference between your image and the actual standards is that we'd ask that the vote provide *sufficient* explanations for each point awarded. We can't just accept *any* explanation though as sometimes those explanations would potentially be pure bias or unfounded opinion.

The actual standards require that a person address every single point raised in the debate. That's stupid. Really, it's stupid.

No, that's only the standard for the opt-in voting system. We also allow the regular voting standards where voters need to only address the key arguments that impacted their reasoning. Of course, we also offer the option for no vote moderation at all, which can be achieved if both debaters state and agree to that in the beginning of the debate.

The standard completely and explicitly forbids making general overall assessment of debates. An RFD *has* to be rooted in the individual arguments. You can't look at the overall argument and make a judgement on that.

Of course an RFD has to be rooted in the individual arguments, but not *all* individual arguments.

I think the main misunderstanding here is that you are confusing the opt-in standards with the regular standards.

Lol, I like the visual element but I do see one slight issue with this.

The second step says, "Does the vote provide any explanation for each point awarded."

The issue I see with this is with the key terms "any explanation". The problem is that if someone says they awarded arguments because, "they like Con's personality more" it'd be permissible under your proposed standards since it's still an explanation. We can't allow such votes though as they aren't votes based on the substance of the arguments but rather on the personal opinion of the voter.

The only difference between your image and the actual standards is that we'd ask that the vote provide *sufficient* explanations for each point awarded. We can't just accept *any* explanation though as sometimes those explanations would potentially be pure bias or unfounded opinion.

The actual standards require that a person address every single point raised in the debate. That's stupid. Really, it's stupid.

No, that's only the standard for the opt-in voting system. We also allow the regular voting standards where voters need to only address the key arguments that impacted their reasoning. Of course, we also offer the option for no vote moderation at all, which can be achieved if both debaters state and agree to that in the beginning of the debate.

The standard completely and explicitly forbids making general overall assessment of debates. An RFD *has* to be rooted in the individual arguments. You can't look at the overall argument and make a judgement on that.

Of course an RFD has to be rooted in the individual arguments, but not *all* individual arguments.

I think the main misunderstanding here is that you are confusing the opt-in standards with the regular standards.

That's not true.

For the recent "Voting Bans" thread, the user was voting on this debate:

Most debaters choose #2. If you are looking at it from the perspective of the debater, it seems they simply want votes to be at a certain standard. For instance, I want votes on my debates to meet a fairly high standard and if the voters can't meet that, I don't want them voting on my debates at all. Why even bother voting on debates where debaters expect a higher standard than what you are willing to provide time and effort-wise as opposed to sticking to category #1?

If your disagreement is in about how strict category #2 should actually be, how helpful would it be to add another category (#1.5 for the sake of discussion) between #1 and #2 where votes only have to provide some explanation of their RFD which may or may not be sufficient according to the standards of #2 which only removes the most obvious votebombs? Debaters can choose how strictly they want their debates moderated and if that's what they want, that's what they will choose. I suggested this idea a few months ago and it was universally panned.

Lol, I like the visual element but I do see one slight issue with this.

The second step says, "Does the vote provide any explanation for each point awarded."

The issue I see with this is with the key terms "any explanation". The problem is that if someone says they awarded arguments because, "they like Con's personality more" it'd be permissible under your proposed standards since it's still an explanation. We can't allow such votes though as they aren't votes based on the substance of the arguments but rather on the personal opinion of the voter.

The only difference between your image and the actual standards is that we'd ask that the vote provide *sufficient* explanations for each point awarded. We can't just accept *any* explanation though as sometimes those explanations would potentially be pure bias or unfounded opinion.

^This

"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

Most debaters choose #2. If you are looking at it from the perspective of the debater, it seems they simply want votes to be at a certain standard. For instance, I want votes on my debates to meet a fairly high standard and if the voters can't meet that, I don't want them voting on my debates at all. Why even bother voting on debates where debaters expect a higher standard than what you are willing to provide time and effort-wise as opposed to sticking to category #1?

If you want a specifically high standard, you should be choosing option #4.

At 6/9/2016 11:09:18 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:If you want a specifically high standard, you should be choosing option #4.

That works and probably what I would do. But I'd also want the option of allowing anyone willing to give a good RFD to vote on my debate without restricting myself to just a few judges. The current voting rules give me that option.